Category talk:Possibly fictional people from Europe

@Johnpacklambert: "People whose existence is disputed" seems correct to me, but not "possibly fictional people". I just noticed your addition of Merogais, but he his certainly not a fiction. He may be a mistake and thus nonhistorical, but not a fiction. I suspect there are many others here. Srnec (talk) 21:05, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

• If he is not real, he is fictional. I am not too stuck on any form of the name. We do however have a lot of people who are in categories meant for real people whose reality is not clear. If they are not real, they are fictional. At least that is how I use fictional. The parent category is too large, and we had way too many people in pirates categories who did not belong there. It is also not well applied in some cases.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:52, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
  • If he is not real, he is fictional. That is not how I understand the word 'fictional'. Wiktionary defines it as "invented, as opposed to real", which sounds right to me. But Merogais, for example, would not be a product of invention even if unreal. Srnec (talk) 04:37, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

    @Johnpacklambert Why you didn't just use the parent category name? ^SMason_Garrison 04:18, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

    In my view that would make the title way too long, and I could not really parse how to name it for other levels. Anyway to me "fictional" is the opposite of existing. Either people existed, or thry are made up. So to me if someone has disputed existence this is exactly the same as them not being real, which is the same as fictional. If someone is created from a misreading of records they are still invented, and this fictional per the above dictionary definition. If you think there is a better form of these Category titles you can nominate them for rename. I am also not sure we really have enough to justify the Spanish one, and am starting to think we should use the from form all the way down. Most of the people in these categories pre-date 1100, which makes it problematic to use modern nationality headings. The Anglo-Saxon Category heavily involves people who come if not purely from legend from the earliest times of migrating from the European continent to the island of Britain, and so it is more an ethnic or proto-ethnic than a nationality Category at all. What I am sure of is that we need to be clear who is a known historical entity, and who is invented. Although some of the contents here I wonder if the "possible" fiction or the dispirited existence really makes sense. Robinhood for example seems to be whole fictitious.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:27, 19 December 2024 (UTC)